Je veux savoir à propos de…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations granting a privilege to documents and information required by law, including documents and information required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval, since Virginia must enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts . . . . The opinion concludes that regarding Va. Code Sec. 10.11198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.
Virginias Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.11199, provides that to the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law, any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney Generals January 12, 1998
opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginias Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:50 Feb 09, 2021

Jkt 253001

CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410k; 40 CFR 52.02a.
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPAs role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993 and 13563 76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011;
Is not an Executive Order 13771 82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017 regulatory action because this is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.;
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.;
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Pub. L. 1044;
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999;
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997;
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001;
Is not subject to requirements of section 12d of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 15 U.S.C. 272 note because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898
59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994.
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

8871

governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000.
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 8042.
C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307b1 of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 12, 2021. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action certifies negative declarations for certain specified CTGs, including the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas CTG, as well as a number of other negative declarations for ACTs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Northern Virginia area and may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307b2.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
This document of the Environmental Protection Agency was signed on November 17, 2020, by Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree in Center for Biological Diversity, et al., v.
Wheeler, Case No. 3:20cv00448VC
N.D. CA. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by EPA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned EPA Official
E:FRFM10FER1.SGM

10FER1